Dems want gun control, but worry it could cost them midterms.

…the issue is a delicate one for party leaders hoping to flip both chambers in this year’s midterm elections by defeating Republicans in conservative-leaning districts where tougher gun laws can be radioactive.

Democrats paid a steep political price after championing an assault weapons ban in 1994 and are wary of energizing the GOP base.

One former Democratic leadership aide put it bluntly: “How do you keep from having a conversation about sensible changes be turned into ‘They want to take your guns away’?”

Meredith Kelly, spokeswoman for the House Democrats’ campaign arm, said the party has no plan for a national messaging strategy on gun reform, citing the “geographically and culturally diverse House battlefield.”

In other words, pols can continue to get the guns taken away in murder $hitholes like Chicago (because it won’t matter anyway to the criminals who live there), but they don’t dare try in areas where they know the people are law abiding because these people aren’t being bribed with welfare to pull the lever for left.

Facts are tough. You won’t see that said at the Town Hall. Dana Loesch won’t dare utter that truth on her circular stage.

One former Democratic leadership aide put it bluntly: “How do you keep from having a conversation about sensible changes be turned into ‘They want to take your guns away’?”

So… The Democratic leadership wants to encourage more guns in the public’s hands? Because the only “changes” that aren’t more guns are less guns. And less guns than there are now, is… Hey, Barbie, how would you describe the government enforcing fewer guns in the public’s hands?

Anybody besides me think it’s plausible that these mass shootings are planned by the left to advance their anti-gun agenda. How hard would it be to talk some mentally unhinged nut case into doing a little killing.
Would it be too far fetched to think they would be willing to sacrifice a few innocent lives to achieve their end goal?